One may often be advised, it seems, to live without regrets. This assumes that one only regrets unattempted actions. It also assumes one may live with complete disregard for the effects of one's behavior. This is emotional irresponsibility. The truth is that the consequences of each individual action as well as the collective results of a timeline of aggregate activities and pursuits rarely satisfies.

This discussion is not concerned with those content to act carelessly and distance themselves from the aftermath. That is not regret. The others involved in a situation, abandoned to contemplate and complete the sense and psychology of it all are the ones who struggle with this concept. So.

What is regret? For the purpose of this discourse, regret will be confined/defined as follows--a conflict perpetually devoid of resolution, internally produced and processed by comparison of an outcome with desired results coupled with recollection and repetition of the course of events leading to the outcome in an attempt to reconcile the exact disruption and disconnect between intention and actuality. It cannot be judged upon the result alone, for a subject may lose a job or a lover, but none of this may matter to that subject and therefore there is no source or seed for regret. Regret can also not exist without consciously created internal expectations. Regret cannot apply to natural behavior, for example, wherein the outcome would not itself be complete, but a continuation of a larger goal, in this case survival. Whether one fails or succeeds to find food, food will always be a necessity. The expectation for satiation is not consciously created. The third component of regret is reflection, searching to understand why the anticipated effect was not acheived. And this third step proves to be the biggest obstacle to a static, content mind. It's the aim of the discussion below to remedy this.

For the purpose of one's long-term mental health, I propose the utilization of a categorical system for regrets, a way to expedite the process of obsession and qualification and measurements of sides. In such a system, all regrets, and for most of us there are many, can be labeled either disapppointments or mistakes.

Disappointments can be attributed to others' transgressions, whether perceived or admitted on their part. It is the shortcoming of another or their unwillingness and/or inability to fulfill dictated and/or implied expectations. This is only a valid attribution when the subject is completely forthright in explaining intentions. This does not necessarily reveal the subject's expectations of other parties, but certainly dictates that no ulterior motives be present. It means that while an explanation to another may contain the immediately desired outcome, the long term goal may remain hidden, even though the long term goal is easily predictable by all parties involved as a logical extension of the short term completion. Again, to food, one may eat a certain food after being told that it possesses certain health benefits. This now imbues the act of eating with a certain conscious level of expectation. If the provider of the information was dishonest or ill-intentioned and the result is that the food does not promote good health or even has an adverse effect, then the consumer now regrets the decision. While an argument can take place externally with the immediate expectation of resolution, nothing can prevent the comsumer from still debating the time or money wasted or the insult to intelligence. Very rare is it that someone takes trickery in stride. If a subject does, however, then they aren't falling prey to regret and won't even approach the need for this rationale. As for others, though (our subjects), it's simple to understand that while every step was taken to execute a plan towards improvement (a generic term for the beneficial result of any particular aim) and that another's deviance or divergent intentions led to the incompletion of the goal. In this case, there is nothing to be done about the circumstances or the events that led up to them. While for most it's impossible to erase the sensation of regret through mere intellectual overtures, the attribution of disappointment can alleviate the stress of alteration of one's plans or expectations, and even when applied, import a renewed sense of dignity that in the interaction or transaction that one maintained throughout an upright sense of human dignity and staunch principle. In the case of our example, the consumer realizes that the goal towards good health and expectation of results in that line was honestly approached and seriously pursued. There is then no reason to change the expectations or individual pespective. One can simply view the falsified information and its supplier as negligible in regards to achievement of completion.

Conversely mistakes, more commonly and sometimes incorrectly identified, reflect back onto the subject for examination of the source of error. It is born from an action taken in direct opposition to expectations, sometimes knowingly and often not. It tends to be viewed as a dismissable aberration from intentions, or an excusable relinquishment of principles for what seems to be a harmless immediate pursuit. Revisiting the consumer and the advisor/seller again, we note that all is the same in regards to intentions and expectations, but this time the error is on the subject's behalf. This can range from an accidental misinterpretation of previous information, perhaps how to properly prepare or consume the food, to willful disobedience or ignorance, for example skipping prescribed consumption. Mistakes are more confusing territory, because they usually result from one's dishonesty, even to oneself, in the course of events and requires in its implementation an admission of prior inconsistency. In the postmodern age, though, it has become vogue to allow personal or public guilt to easily persuade one to take responsibility for a regret when it needn't be so. For example, in a form of Aristotilian regression (that is Aristotle, right?), one can say of the first situation that the consumer made the mistake by failing to realize the advice was bad, by not taking a second opinion or by becoming involved with the supplier of the advice to begin with. All of these considerations stem from misplaced and false sources of guilt. The benefit of correctly identifying a mistake, though, and also the method for identifying one, is thankfully simple. Old adages abound that one should learn from a mistake. If when applying this in the form of a statement, the action to learn from only involves the subject as both performer (subject) and, when present, recipient (object). If the consumer of our bad food can say, I should have prepared it properly, or, I should have adhered to the recommended regiment, Then it's a mistake and the initial action with the same expectations can be repeated, this time in the correct manner to achieve desired results. If our consumer is only left with, I shouldn't have listened, I shouldn't have trusted, I should have double checked, I should have avoided, Then it's a disappointment and while there is no lesson to be applied, the source of the regret can then be excised if the subject is still attempting to materialize the initial predictions.

A major problem here is that many regrets can be reasoned by most sound minds as belonging to either category, because is it not the fault of the subject for not initially perceiving the risks or inevitable shortcomings of results in the face of desired effects? Of course, the opposite is true as many subjects are prone to place false shortcomings and nonexistent responsibilities with others.

Rules need to be in place. A code of principles that can be taken on as assumptions. My individual rules, at least when dealing with people (where a wealth more of my regrets are born than from any other activity) follow here to be taken as no more than possible advice:

--Assume one's perception is functional.--Assume others are providing the truth.--Abandon notions of ulterior motives until such proof is extant.--Take it upon oneself to examine and solve any gaps perceived between the whole of a situation and what one is told. Assume one's own conclusions to be true until and unless satisfactorily disproven and replaced with sufficient, conclusive, contradictory data.

In essence, what is generally considered honesty or truth could be employed for the sake of this discussion. Whether it is intelligent or in one's best interests to use and pursue honesty must be reserved for an entirely different (and perhaps contradictory) entry--truths change daily after all. I warn here that being completely honest in my intentions has never worked to my own advantage. At least using this simplified mode/unified code of human interaction allows me to understand what aberrations occurred to detatch the reality of a result from my predicitions and attempts. And in more emotionally quickened moments, who is to blame. This allows for at least a conscious artificial conclusion or closure so that I may proceed to my next ill-advised misadventure.

I for one, will never know what it's like to live without regrets. The fact that I have them now, even if I were to pretend that none before this year existed, and I will never be able to be a man unburdened from regret. The best I can hope to do is to rationalize all prior interaction according to the suggested rules above. "Was I honest?" "Did I act on good faith?" "Did I eliminate suspicion?" "Did I fill in any gaps as needed?"

So as this year, as dictated by our regretful and neglectful ancestry, draws to a clumsy and inaccurate close, take solace in your unresolved regrets and try to apply this notion to each open account. For example, I regret that no one will ever read this. It's not my mistake, as I've succeeded in sequencing the words properly in a common language. So, for me, as with most of my other regrets of this calendar year, it is one more disappointment.

I myself have often been accused of taking a black and white stance on any number of topics. Many people argue that no truths exist in those extremes, that the truth is always gray, somewhere in between. As a generally staunch opponent of moderation, I argue agains this truism in all its hypocritical, or at least ironic posturing.

The genesis of the need for arbitration exists only when two diametrically opposed viewpoints are brought into confrontation. Without black v white, then no gray would need to exist as a buffer. The immediate counterpoint could be attempted that there are multiple agents on one side of the conflict with slightly varying opinions and this constitutes graying gradation. Not true. While on certain points, the two agents may agree, bonding them in union against a common dissenter, on others they disagree and it's on each point that the black and white argument takes place. If one is taking a stance of any kind, then it is on one side or another of every argument. If one is willing to compromise, to enter the gray, then the disagreement is dissolved.

By definition, there is no argument in grey. Is this because, as mentioned above in a mocking tone, that the truth exists there? That if one is to take all aggregate stances on multivarious issues and blend every single opposition any two interacting parties hold thus creating a gray template (albeit an artifical one) are we to assume the truth exists there? Why? All grey is a glossed-over composite of several dichotomies. So how can the truth exist in half-hearted gestures and poorly indoctorinated beliefs?

What does exist in the gray then? The only truth in the gray is a berth or derth of molecules, depending on the dilution of the two original divergences. Molecules float back and forth between the black and white viewpoints as well as compose them and so we may assume that what's supporting and distancing them are the same atomic compositions. That's the only definition the median area holds. Other than that mere physical fabrication, is there anything in the area between the distant ports?

Allowing that substance and not complete absence exists in this mysterious area, allowing that any disagreement is composed of a continuum of nearly endless propositions and suppositions, isn't each one in and of itself a new black point for which there must only logically exist an argument of completely opposite weight as to balance or even negate it? So even if teh gray area is comprised of many miniature re-assessments, then they all in themselves are new arguments and not reposing of the initial one that sparked them.

But, supposing I'm wrong on the above assertions, supposing I'm missing a big point or even making a big mistake here. Isn't insisting on a wealth of options other than two opposing views itself a hardline stance? The paradox upon which the gray argument collapses is that it in itself is a black or white point. Of course, I muse that grays are always destined to collapse anywya, because it's simply a semantic variant for an acutely weak statement.

And which is black and which white in any particular argument? As previously observed, the parts are not opponents, but components, reliant on each other for definiton and maintanence of individual identity. Black is white. Therefore, black is not truly black and white not truly white, but each a version of themselves, and building upon that, the conclusion is that all opposites negate each otehr and themselves because it's impossible to know which is which and where each opposite begins. They themselves begin to fill the space left in the absence of a median and the black and white, thus conflated become gray themselves. Therefore nothing but gray exists, and without any opposition, much less a strong one, to define and identify it as so, gray itself then ceases to be. Why don't arguments themselves cease?

This album is what NIN wanted to be if they were relevant anymore in this decade. I love the fact they they left some of their chiptune influences and made a serious album, with amazing atmospheric songs that are easy to get lost in.

This album was so easy to like. The hooks, and beats are infectious. In an industry where electro-pop is ruled by Lady Gaga and Ke$ha, M.I.A. grabs you by the hair and slaps you in the face. She primarily produced the album herself, and wrote all the songs which is such a rarity these days. Sometimes a little too pop soaked, most tracks on this album rattle your bones and get you head bobbing.

This band is single-handedly brought back my interest in a genre I though I mournfully lost. I have to admit that they sound just like Prodigy, I mean just like ... Prodigy. Good news is that Prodigy is OK with it as they guest star on the album. It's nice to know that a genre that was so extensively whored out in the late 90's can yet again be interesting, and relevant again.

Music Math: Prodigy + 2 members

Song: Fuck You

6. Cee-lo - The Lady Killer

This album puts you right in a Delorean and takes you back to the soulful 60's. Cee-lo and his sugary vocals are so catchy, and danceable it makes you wonder why not all modern music could be like this. Also, not to overlook "this decade's Hey Ya" in Fuck You, an amazing collection of vulgarity robed in a sweet song of love and acceptance. It's simply irresistible.

Music Math: Gnarls Barkley + Marvin Gaye

Song; Tell 'em

5. Sleigh Bells - Treats

When I first heard this album I was hooked from the first song. I never heard a louder band in my life, they grab you by your face and punch you in the stomach from the first track on. The sexy vocals paired with the punishing beats behind it give it a perfect duality of yin and yang. What is borderline abrasive turns into sonic energy that pulses through your body and gets your ass moving.

Music Math: Crystal Method + dynamite + + Goldfrapp

Song: I Gave You All

4. Mumford & Sons - Sigh No More

These next 4 albums I can honestly say I have listened to from beginning to end more than once. Mumford and Sons write music right from their hearts, and channel it through an amazing composition of instruments. Literally every word to every song carries years of pain, joy, and longing behind it. Its music you can listen to and tell that they gave a shit, and they have a story to tell.

Music Math: (Bright Eyes - bad vocals) + (Fleet Foxes - hipsters)

Song: Ready to Start

3. Arcade Fire - Suburbs

There is nothing I can type here that hasn't already been said about this incredible body of work. All of it is true.

Music Math: Neon Bible + 1 album

Song: All of Them

2. Girl Talk - All Day

If you have no idea who Girl Talk is, I will not be your friend. This year is was 373 samples in 12 wrinkle-free tracks. He uses bits and pieces from artists as eclectic The Doors, N.w.A., White Zombie, and Iggy Pop. The whole album is like a music scavenger hunt where you hear something entirely new every single time, every time inspiring a heartfelt "oh shit"

Music Math: all music ever + hot beats

Song: Conversation 16

1. The National - High Violet

I have to admit I'm a little late to The National love-fest. This is the first album I have heard of the 5 they have released, but I have to admit I fell hard for them. The lyrics, although cryptic, feel like they were written personally for me, and me only. The vocals are like a delicious scotch meant to be savored instead of consumed. The musical arrangements pull forth such emotion when paired with the desperate plea to understand a world that has left him behind. Every single track is amazing and single worthy. The theme of a life that is evolving passed your understanding hits home, and carves a little special place in my heart for this masterpiece of an album.

I swear I don't do this intentionally, but posting something so hilariously low brow after a brilliant thought provoking post by Ian, is the duality that makes construxnunchux the best site on the net.

If we are to move forward with this discussion, we need to quickly and loosely define existence: we will indeed go with the commonly accepted usage which in most cases is prefaced by "just." It is the state of perpetual functioning on teh very simplest level (although all higher forms that build and act upon this idea are included as branches of existence). So, what is required for human existence? What is the one element of human existence that drives us to fulfill our basic needs?

Before I answer that emphatically and confidently, I have a line of questioning as diversion-- Is there really anyone in our way, preventing us on a continual basis from accomplishments or acquisition or even mere survival? Do we actually have enemies? Granting that we do, are we truly trying to defeat, conquer and surpass all our enemies? Is the fact that no clear victor has ever emerged from any contest in the arena of human existence (of course we need to define victory as well, not as easy as existence) an indicator not only that enemies exist but that the enemies are all equally strong and therefore unable to destory?

Or is it that we need our enemies? That such graces as mercy for its own sake don't exist and we keep an opponent breathing for our own sake? I make a very easy reference for you here-- in The Dark Knight, our rapturous antagonist observes that he and his adversary need each other, that neither one due to his unique belief system can conquer the other or exist. They created and perpetuate each other's need to sustain themselves. Any hero and any villain give each other purpose and identity, though they spring simultaneously from the same need. Even mild and realistic forms, such as police and criminals are born of a commonly held need.

That need is conflict. That is the one basic human need that differentiates us from what some call "lesser beings." That's why we eat and breathe. and sleep and pursue. Whether we acknowledge that such a concept as complete and unassailable victory is impossible outside the realm of simplistic and artificially created contests.

Before I myself am contested on the mere fact that every living organism requires the basic needs of nourishment and self-nurture, allow me to make perfectly clear that I am referring solely to the most intrinsic human need, what it is that makes us human beyond our mere mutations that in all honesty should have killed us ages ago, that creates the initial urge to even pursue these animalistic activites in spite of the constant conscious questions. Incidentally, though, the same base pursuits are in themselves conflicts-- fighting to claim what has never been an abundance of resources, to conquer and reap benefits of mating and safety, etc. Whoever doesn't succeed dies.

Conflict is a need as a motivator, a concrete reason for accepting an abstract concept like life. Each of us needs conflict to construct an identity, as every identity is the result of some long or short term goal (think in this instance of Descartes) and every action is either a prelude or preparation for a conflict or a result of it. Conflict inspires us to better ourselves, as well, so that we can get what our opponents have or get what they want before they do. Conflict is the sole resistant element to doubt. Otherwise, why bother to do anything? And by extention why exist? Conflict not only defines us, but all existing external elements of a decision, the parameters of our desires and the action necessary to gain it. In addition to definition by commission, conflict allows us to define ourselves by negation, even though that itself is mutable and fluid. We are not who we are fighting, and that's why we fight them. The desire not to possess a particular characteristic is equally strong to the desire to attain others.

Conflicts and opponents exist in every system of belief and politic in existence ever. There's always a struggle. In our present system of government, we're presented with (as some will remark, only the semblance of) two major divergent parties. If these parties are not simply old white men pretending to argue and divert our attention (too much bias?), then they are true opponents and as such have yet to execute true victory, thus eliminating completely and permanently the threatening side. It is more likely that there is a general pool of One congealed governing body and only an illusion of antagonism that many citizens take to an extreme, but this in itself is the public service, to give us drive and purpose, to allow us to form opinions and values without a deep knowledge of the history of philosophy and ethics. It provides for the layman and the everyman a show of concrete dichotomy, Us v. Them, and every lesser duality that exists under or beside this one only reinforces initial presentiments. So, opponents exist, by their own definition, nowhere in this world. There is nothing that prevents us from reaching our established goals. They are instead, components.

This is a dangerous realization to enact, though. Some attempt to affect a balance, a world without combat or dissent, would result in static. Nothing would move because there would be no stimuli, no reason. What is necessary is not a harmonious center, but contantly alternating extremes--balance would lead to a withering away, whereas each new setback or triumph inspires renewed vigor, redesigned attacks and reenergized purpose. The goal will always be to take or to take back what is not yours, no matter whether your targeted opposition possesses your targeted desire. So we need to be told as humans that there are parties to blame for our misfortune, even if after potentially eventually uniting as a species, that it's other species and even the whole of nature that itself has no conception of striving for attainment as humans have developed and maintained.

So, having eliminated our opponents by realizing they don't exist, we must understand the hinderance of internal conflict. We often prevent ourselves from happiness by making bad decisions or panicking and preventing fruition of an established attempt at success. Why? What stops us? It often seems we have no control over our doubts or laziness or fear or distaste. We often blame an intangible and invisible force we're unable to reconcile, an entity lodged within us, aggressive and relentless, often characterized or animated as a second self or even perhaps a manifestation of external stimuli. How do demons come to be created? There is a conflict in choices, sometimes. A conflict in schedules. A conflict in interests. Is it simply that we're unable to keep up with our own existence, that simply by experiencing the world, we become fraught with unspoken soliloquies preventing us from contentment? Do demons come rising from some inhaled ether to damn us to self-loathing and mediocrity?

I propose that the inner conflicts we experience are a direct result of the oppositions we face in the waking world. They are perhaps the negative result of what is essentially a healthy and positive natural occurrence. What is it that prevents us from attaining whatever we want? Why do we feel the need to decide? Why can't our spoils in this life simply wait on us to be ready for their acquisition? Because there is someone else waiting to take not only what we have but what we choose not to take. Every internal question and realization is a manifestation of existence in an external world of interaction. Our own inner demons are that which we define as unwanted inside ourselves. Aren't they defined by others' preconceptions or standards or is it an innate reaction to what is innately not us? By what we need to meet or surpass to defeat our opponents? In this case, it would be beneficial for the mind to relinquish conflict. But then we are left complacent. So even here, we stand at an impasse. I guess this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object. Luckily, we will never live without conflict.

We are often posed with a statement considering rehabilitation as well as the various possibilities of governing, guiding, and correctional systems: Does Man have a choice in the proposed scenario. For an example, I respectfully refer you to the priest in Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange (why yes that is the only book of his I've read), who puts forth an impassioned argument in this vein in opposition to an extreme form of that fiction's systems. He asks whether an individual can be truly good without the ability to make the conscious choice. Of course, Mr. Burgess's point leads us to a direct response to that very question, but that really isn't what I'm aiming towards here.

We act as if all we need to do to have a choice is be born, that as long as no major oppositional or arbitrating forces interfere's, that we can be good.First, let's look at good and evil, and the priest. Is it really religion's job to give us a choice? It enforces its tenets with positive and negative reinforcements by which all others are measured and which none have ever equaled. While semantically, we have a choice according to the priest's religion, we're rather limited, because there exists very little middle ground. One either receives copious rewards for doing what's suggested and expected or relentless and unbearable punishment for abstaining. This is an either/or proposition (and no, i haven't read Either/Or yet, so I may be repeating easily accessible knowledge). There is the suggestion or Purgatory in some beliefs but the idea there is that it's still preparation and training for a second attempt at adhering to the rules.

This extends to every religion or philosophy to which I've ever been exposed or I've ever explored. The underlying connecting theme of even the most docile offering is that it's there to improve your life, but a more sinister phrasing follows: "Either do what's written here or you'll be miserable." This is only an inference and only my perception, but just as much of an inference that following a teaching will lead to joy or peace. So, do we have a choice when offered morality from any one particular or number of combined disciplines?

The answer is not to abandon religions or philosophies altogether. This impressed promise of relief or reward occurs in every proposed system of behavioral molding, from political doctorines to psychological journals. It's suggested to put a certain party in office or to revolt and establish a different system of government or to follow a prescribed routine to gain our happiness. And any course of action outside the studied and established methodology will result in dissatisfaction. So, Do We Have A Choice? Ever?

A system by its very nature even implicitly bars the room to choose between any two or multivarious options. I hear often that people say they have to work and the impudence in me vomits forth, reminding them they have a choice. The choice is to starve, though. This doesn't only apply to the current and often derided system. Often, teh more revolutionary ones dictate quite severely that their propositions must be obey and any opposition must be crushed (points for honesty). So, in our current surroundings and in any proposed topia of any kind, our choice is invariably limited to the most superficial and ineffectual.

We've been told alternately by one product of the Far Right that The ends justify the means and by one of the Far Left that actions performed oppressed are by definition different from the very same actions perpetrated by the oppressors. So, we see that even diametrically opposed schools of thought both view the Intention as the deciding factor of an action. But it's all wrong. To plan for a purpose to act in name of a future or greater occurrence whether you deem yourself the beneficiary or future generations, then the action is inherently wrong. There always have and will exist opposing intentions or aims and that's the true dichotomy, not a good v. evil, but rather Us v Them.

The Action is the reward in itself. It must be viewed as such. Every conscious decision or unconscious move made is in the interest of self-preservation or even self-benefit. The moment a philosophy is applied prior to or attached after-the-fact of an action, it is impure and you become evil. And perhaps not universally, but no such evil exists. Acts committed with the noble label of "For The Greater Good" are a falsity. No good is purely good and no proposed good is a natural good. All suggestions of benefit are rooted in a current ideology and laced with an often undisclosed motive. Even in the most equanimous and equitable social construct, whatever that is to each individual with enough free time to mentally erect one includes systematic provision, at least implicitly, that dictates anyone who doesn't obey will endure fruitless misery.

Every act leads to satisfaction, even sacrifice and even that with the direct aim of displeasing oneself (for the sake of experiment, perhaps, or contrition). As established, that committed under the pretense of fulfilling a future aim is inherently betraying one's own interests. The paradox behind the second half of this statement is obvious and over at least 3000 years old. It is the human invention of intent that defines an action. Otherwise the only choice, the basest choice we possess, innately, is life or death (and yes, you're right, I suppose Shakespeare did beat me to this point here). So Do We Have A Choice?

And if we don't have a choice as individuals, and if trying to establish a collective system where choice is possible further limits by its institution the choices available to us, and if even trying to abandon the concept of choice constitutes a philosophy (albeit primative), then where are we left? With Action, yes? With immediacy in the truest sense of the word and nothing else, with each moment building upon itself. How do we acheive this and still maintain some semblence of peace, peace being the absence of constant fear and destruction? I'll let you decide.

By no means a new or original discovery, but if you've never heard this song or seen the unnecessarily high rocknroll kick about 23 seconds into the video, then please do yourself the favor of patiently waiting for the page and video to load and hitting play...

Rip Taylor, now known for his impeccable timing, inimitable soft-shoe routines and sparkling sequined spectacles, has, unbeknownest to most, affected our lives and current daily routines more than we can understand or appreciate and moreso than the ever reserved and humble Rip is willing to divulge. As this travesty needs to be corrected, we aim to present to you some of the lesser known contributions to the human race through the next few installments of our expose.

Rip, a true true pioneer in western, world and fusion-beatz and tunes is known to have written over 400 modern folk staples, though only having officially released two albums proper.

His major label debut Taylor Made was a fairly sizeable hit on the Nigerian charts, often cited as the main inspiration behind Fela Kuti's early works. The long anticipated follow-up, Rippin' Good Time came out about 6 days later, pre-dating The Dave Brubeck Quartet's forays into odd signatures by over 30 years, featuring Rip's signature 15 octave range. A third LP entitled Rip This!!! was planned, recorded and mastered, with two copies even released accidentally in the Portuguese underground vinyl market. It was banned from most markets though for its excess of funk in direct violation with the International Amnesty code 3.4.11B.

Amongst the most sought after tapes is an 1843 recording session at Stax Japan featuring Rip and longtime protege and rival Bootsy Collins. Rip debuted his inventive "toupee" percussive stylings during the 704 contiguous days he spent in the studio, as well as playing the Ripsichord and upright glockenspiel, often simultaneouly as well as assuming bass duties for an ever increasing exhausted Collins who was later to remark that had he not participated in the sessions, he would have been able to supply the universe with interplanetary funk over a century earlier than executed, thus circumventing most major military conflicts and scuffles worldwide. What's rarely mentioned and never acknowledged is Rip's over-arching influence on the funk world's fashion sense and rhythm.

One of the most appalling omissions from the list of Rip's fantastic and enduring musical contributions is that of his invention of the Taylorphone; similar in style to a tuba attached to a Red HOT LIPPS Phone but instead of producing a pedestrian and pedantic scale of limited notes, it would shoot streams and wads of confetti at random intervals. It can be heard faintly in the original pressings of many works by George Gershwin and Duke Ellington, though many stodgy revisionists have attempted to sonically reduce its aural prominence.

Of course, this is but a brief smattering of confirmed and factual accomplishments in the world of sonorous martyrdom offered to us by the ever extensive talent pool possessed by this one great man, Rip Taylor. Any information leading to the whereabouts of any existing recordings featuring Rip, in any condition, should be immediately supplied to your faithful and dedicated investigators here at Construx Nunchux.

In life you it is so rare where you are lucky enough to have your frustrations manifest into a physical form. I have something to focus years of dissatisfaction and repressed discontent on. I am blessed to have such a project that the end result will heal, and cut this cold, faded anchor.

First, pardon, fer starters: I hate the word blog. I loathe most portmaneus, and that most have become mantras.

But allow--look just stop and let me talk here okay???--all--I said Shut Up!!--allow me to make a simple observation. Blogging, not TV, not the elevation of untouchable celebrity status, is prominently responsible for the degradation of our senses and consciousness. Not because it promotes discussion of the most banal topics, or spotlights unenlightening whimsys or moments that should remain and should have remained private--no. It's because blogging allows, in step with the rest of our immediate but unintimate culture, the author to dispense undeveloped thoughts, dispell underdeveloped contradictions, and disseminate undeserving discourse. It allows one to scoop the scum from the top of the pond without ever having to reach down and slap down the sludge as well. Yet, in all these clean and still surfaces, no one ever sees a reflection of themselves. The reason is that the constant reaching and distempering of the surface permits only a distortion.

Any opinion can become philosophy with enough patience and poring. Any modernity can dissatisfy and perturb. It's on the behalf of the author to wait responsibly, not responsively, and allow these small petty thoughts to grow, for the disparate, unstable atoms of reaction to connect and form a unique unified theory. But no, it's easier and more immediately satisfying to parcel portions of pithy complaints and phrases, retorts and cheap shots against those absent to defend themselves. There is no depth, no research, just immediate acceptance of an opinion in line with one's own, but always secondary to one's own, and never never a transgression into the forbidden exploration of why one's own opinions or beliefs or stance exist inside one. These people, bloggers all, are the outsiders, but not in the way many would ahve you believe. They are not the deposed, dispossessed defenders of free speech. They are the cowards who choose to stand aside and make stray marks and remarks without taking a position. The are eternal internal contradicitons giving to us only a pose, an image they wish to mold and emphasize, avoiding or easily dismissing from behind curtains and beyond lines any idea even approaching an argument.

Dear Reader, it is our sincere wish at CN not to be ironic (as one may think the intention of this posting) or evasive or tailored. We wish to provide our entire selves, in all the glorious shame we exist. We invite challenges, questions and suspicions as they only serve to distinguish and strengthen our positions and contortions as innumerable as they are. You ae not merely our audience, but hopefully an active participant.

Thanksgiving '99.(editor's note: this was written on an old word processor in my old bedroom when I was a confused young adult. Apologies for the bad formatting, and bad style. All that is posted is true.)

Thanksgiving '99

The expose of the century! Finally the secrets of the Clemente Thanksgiving holiday revealed to the public. Learn the inner most workings of the Clemente family as they come together on this glorious occasion to ruin all the sanctity of the holiday season.

Paul:

It was around 10 am when I awoke from a particularly good night's sleep; I listened hard to be aware of any sounds or evidence that anyone was awake also. In my mind, everything was safe so I took a brief nap. Suddenly, I was snapped out of my morning haze to hear my mom semi-cordially say " I think you should wake up and do Thanksgiving with the family" I groaned and turned over and drifted back off to sleep.... I knew what kind of trouble awaited me. The like a thunderclap my dad bursts in the room when I decided to wake up " Wake up! Clean this room! Get down stairs so you can have breakfast so me can continue the dinner making process" I told him I knew I should wake up, but it was no use he made his point and he left triumphantly. I got up took a brief shower and shaved and I listened closely to hear of any fighting, there was some but I dot know what or with whom. I went downstairs and my dad told me Hurry up and eat the "kitchen" is closed" he said sarcastically. I wasn't too sure what he meant by that because we only had coffee cake for breakfast and there was no preparation involved. Confused I got a napkin to eat it and watch the Macy's day parade "Get a plate dammit!" my dad screamed so I wasted a plate on a measly piece of coffee cake. I finally went to sit down and watch the festivities on TV and my lovely father screamed again " That's my seat!!!" I got up to watch him only hover around the seat with a cup of coffee and go back into the kitchen. I went upstairs to go back asleep...11:54am...

Ian:I was in a deep sleep when mom saying something to the effect rather politely awaked me, "I think you should get up and have some breakfast." Then she commented on my face looking weird and I told her "Of course it does I just got up." So, after she left I laid in bed for 10 minutes. I heard one interesting thing. In the midst of conversation dad interrupted himself "Don't take grapes from the fruit bowl!!!" Since he yelled at Jill, mom naturally had to shut him down and come to her baby's aid. "Is the fruit for eating or is it just decoration?" she said. I went downstairs and was instructed on what I was allowed to eat and how it should be prepared. Ignoring him I made some waffles and then went back upstairs. But before I left the kitchen, dad asked," Did you see your brother up yet?" "I didn't see him so I don't know." In a rampage he stormed upstairs. I ventured to my room to make my bed. Paul then came into my room and sort of just putzed around. He left and went back into his room and turned on some techno music or whatnot. As he heard dad's thunderous footsteps ascending the staircase, he decided it would be best to close his door and I would have done the same. Dad walked into his own room and after Paul shut his door dad remarked, "Yeah, you'dAt quarter after 1 the doorbell rung and it was grandma, aunt Susan, and sardine, this woke me from the nap I was taking, I listened to everyone cheesily greet each other, Paul and I went downstairs and cheesily greeted everyone ourselves, but not before Jill yelled at us to go downstairs. Today she hasBeen on some sort of rampage or crusade is a better word to get us in trouble.... telling mom that "The boys were pounding!!!" Anyway, Aunt Susan and I decided to talk about Bowie and Iggy so that took up some time and then Paul and her started speaking of Pokemon, then Paul brought down said Pokeball. I decided to make myself comfy and sit in the recliner but as soon as I did, dad stopped me cos today it has been "his chair". I gave him an odd look and when I did, he realized that he had publicly relinquished the chair to the people. Then I decided to put the footstool up and lean back. I was brutally yelled at for this, "What are you doing? Fold it down!!" I had no idea what this meant so I just put the footstool down and that shut him up but good. Then he started being a pro at everything and interrupting me about 6 times as he must do every time there is company, disgusted Paul and I retreated to the Secret Revolution Laboratory were we are composing this article...2:16pm...

Look up in the sky tonight. No, those aren't stars. The sky is literally littered with the confetti Rip scattered joyously while making his descent to our planet an unspecified number of centuries ago.

With all things political us Construx Nunchux stay fiercely neutral, but this video is hilarious in my mind. I'm not sure what my favorite aspect of this human being is. It could be the fact that is a self-proclaimed karate expert, or the fact where he created his own political party, or the idea that his platform is wildly unrealistic for so many reasons, but he pitches it with such stone cold conviction. Do I think his beard is awesome? .... yes I do.

" RENTS TOO DAMN HIGH party says If you want to marry a shoe. I'll marry them." (1:48)

Rip is known universally and the world's greatest entertainer, but this wasn't always so ... For a period in the 80's the Japan was consistently confused Rip Taylor with the pugilist Von Kaiser. The origin of the mixup comes from the loose translation of Rip's name to the Japanese phrase meaning "he who births negative happy head feelings".

This confusion actually got Rip booked in the Tokyo Dome in 1986 to face a no name American fighter to improve his image. Rip declined the invitation cordially through his red HOT LIPPS phone, citing the typical mistake.

Things seemed to have resolved themselves from there until roughly a year later in 1987 Mike Tyson's Punch Out was released in Japan for the Nintendo Entertainment System. To the shock and delight of Rip he was featured in the original Japanese release of the game. When Mr. Taylor's lawyers asked for compensation for the likeness of Rip, the Nintendo RD3 developers subsequently changed the name sake to VON KAISER taking Rip's name out of the game entirely.

Nearly 175,000 units were recalled and replacements were issued free of charge to anyone filling out the registration card. The original cartridges were destroyed, and the Japanese legal system determined that Mr. Taylor was owed no compensation.

Upon hearing the news of these strange events, Rip was documented as throwing confetti in the air, and lifting his toupee from his head while quoted as saying "Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees, look at these [points to chest]"

Although most of this story was lost amongst other world events there are a few pictures found on the internet immortalizing the profound impact Rip Taylor had on the Japanese culture in the mid 80's.

After years of exhaustive research and legal quarrels, ConstruxNunchux is solemnly thrilled to present to you the first in what we hope to be a lasting, revealing and enlightening expose' into the true identity of the man known to this universe as Rip Taylor:

1. Rip Taylor is actually the illegitimate father of Steelers superstar Ike Taylor.

7. Open your SD Card (this window is called the ROOT FILE for future reference)

8. Make a NEW FOLDER called "apps" and leave it empty

9. Move the "Indiana Pwns" file to the SD Card ROOT FILE (just drag the contents into the folder) it should be named PRIVATE

10. Move Hack Mii installer to the ROOT FILE of your SD Card

11. Put the SD Card into the Wii and go Wii > DATA MANAGEMENT > SAVE DATA > SD card and copy the US Version Save File to the Wii

12. Fire up the Indiana Jones game and load the saved game like you would regularly.

13. It should put you in some college ... go north and the room on the end of the hallway on the right go through there and it should take you to the COURTYARD.

14. At the end of the COURTYARD, there is a room simply called ART ROOM. There are two dudes standing on a podium. Talk to the one of the left. There will be all kinds of options to pick from, but pick the one that says SWITCH ( http://sites.google.com/site/completesg/exploits/indiana-pwns **

Were there ever simpler times? In our memories, we're able to pare an image or a sensation down to its simplest, usually its most extreme, (and therefore most memorable)form and recall it as bad or good. Simpler times can apply to any event or period far enough removed from the complexity of our own analysis. Of course, I look back at childhood and try to shift all the sensations around until they create a solid colored side or a cohesive image.

But the times themselves, whether 10 years 20 years from right now, or the present moment itself, must all either exist simply or with impenetrable complexity. Because any timeline is a succession of happenings, mostly reactions. The complexities all come from a skewed and relative perception. The minutae of a current or passing sensation or event draws out each individual possibility and outcome to be analyzed and scrutinized with obsessive precision.

It's only when a moment passed and we only observed one of the millions of possible outcomes that we are able to claim the simplicity of any past experience. We end up forgetting the fretting and vascilation and the disproportionate magnification of every new development. We did this as children and did it during our most complacent periods in life. For me, I wonder if the complacency was a result of the simplicity.

What is known for certain is that there are no complex situations. There are only conflicts in preference and precedents set by previous loss or fear that we're either attempting to correct for or trying not to be ruled by. All times are as simple as we want them to be and our current lives can be as well. Unfortunately, since I constantly puruse the most potentially satisfying path, which just as with stocks is invariably the riskiest, I continually fall into pits of nostalgia where I fondly remember more comforting and ultimately less fulfilling times. Of course, the debate between ultimate fulfillment at the expense of contemporaneous happiness is a different topic altogether...

About 10 years ago my friend Sean, and I used to spend almost entire days in his room creating music, sampling beats, and enjoying vodka from a plastic jug. I recently found a pretty easy to use program that sparked my interest again in creating music again. Here is a quick something I threw together in 20 minutes or so. Enjoy ... or don't I don't care.